Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you asked members of the broader community to list the greatest challenges facing our farmers and agricultural production, they would probably place drought at the top of the list, and at times that is no doubt true. But the more constant threat is that of invasive weeds and pest animals. One study estimates that our battle with weeds costs agriculture some $4 billion every year. Another suggests that the loss of agricultural production attributable to pest animals is as high as $6 million each year. Of course, pest animals and weeds are also a threat to our biodiversity, so in this country we need a war on weeds, we need a war on pest animals. Our weapons will of course be many and varied, and money is always involved. It is a productivity issue and one that this parliament must take very seriously.

Of course, part of the armoury will be biological control. What is that? I think the best way to explain it quickly is to mention the word 'myxomatosis', because most Australians relate to that. Myxomatosis is, of course, the biologically induced virus that was produced to control the out-of-control rabbit population here in Australia some 70 years ago. The Biological Control Act 1984, which we are amending today, in conjunction with state and territory legislation, provides the legislative framework for assessing biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest and that safety is foremost in the regulatory mind.

The Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 provides some clarification and greater certainty for biological control programs. In particular, the bill clarifies the definition of an organism under the Biological Control Act. Basically, these clarifications have been made necessary by the potential movement in the consensus in many complex areas of scientific endeavour. To take one small example—my favourite example—I refer to Minister Joyce's second reading speech, where, amongst other things, he says:

Given that there is also debate about whether a virus can be considered to be a living entity (as it is neither alive nor dead), the bill also omits the term 'live' from references to agent organisms.

The proposition is that, if it is neither alive nor dead, then it could be dead or it could be alive. It highlights, almost in a humorous fashion, how complex some of these issues in this field are. The bill is supported by the opposition, but the bipartisanship seems to digress, divert or come apart in another area of the minister's second reading speech, where he says:

The bill supports this government's strategic approach to farming smarter—

I have not seen too much evidence of a strategic approach—

as outlined in the 2015 White Paper on Agricultural Competitiveness, which supports giving farmers better tools and control methods for pest animals and weeds … Biological control is a cost-effective, highly specific and self-sustaining control method, but one that should be used as part of an integrated approach to pest management …

I do not disagree with those key points—of course biological control is an important part of our armoury, as I said. What I do not agree with is that the minister is taking a strategic or coordinated approach.

Currently we are having a debate inside and outside this place, although I am not sure you would call it a debate, because the minister has been reluctant to engage. But certainly I am driving a debate about the minister's decision to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—the regulator in this area of biological control and the chemicals farmers use generally—from Canberra to Armidale. This is a very dangerous proposition for Australian agriculture and all the matters that are contained within this bill. The APVMA has a workforce of almost 200 people based here in Canberra. Its customers are not farmers; its customers are the big chemical companies that produce the crop protection products which farmers rely upon so heavily. The efficacy and efficiency of its work is of critical importance to the farming community. For example, the speed at which it approves farm chemicals—and, indeed, biological controls—is of great importance to the farming community. The workforce is largely made up of professionals, scientists and the like—highly qualified people—who live here in Canberra and send their kids to Canberra schools. It is a statement of fact to say that most of those people are unprepared to move to Armidale, for obvious reasons. That is going to have a huge impact on the capacity of the APVMA, the regulator, to deal with the issues we are talking about today and crop protection and other issues more generally. These are not people who can easily be replaced; if you lose scientists out of the APVMA—scientists who are not prepared to move to Armidale—you will have a great deal of difficulty replacing them. It is a very serious issue for the agriculture sector.

I know the minister is under the pump in his own electorate. He is under siege from Tony Windsor in his electorate, and, according to the polling, is now at risk. But you do not fix that problem by uprooting a major and important organisation here in Canberra and sitting it in your own electorate. Minister, that is not the solution to your problem. The solution to your problem is a coordinated approach to Australian agriculture more generally, a strategic approach to agriculture more generally, and a little bit more attention to some of the other issues that matter in your electorate, including health, education and cost-of-living issues.

But the work the minister is doing goes beyond the relocation. The minister is, I suppose as part of the government's red-tape reduction program, also looking at a range of issues in the APVMA to—in his words or words to this effect—make it more efficient and to reduce red tape. One example which is being foreshadowed is the abolition of the need for the APVMA to assess efficacy. In a cost recovery business like that of the APVMA, at first blush that might make some sense. Industry is paying for the right to have its chemicals, for example—or, indeed, its biological control method—assessed and approved by the APVMA for farm or other use. So, in a cost recovery circumstance, it makes sense that you do not want the APVMA doing what is potentially unnecessary: not only checking for possible threats to human health and other unintended consequences of the chemical or biological control involved but also testing its efficacy—in other words, sending a message to the farming community about how effective the chemical will be for them if they decide to purchase it. I beg to differ, and I am happy to have the conversation in this place, but it seems to me that the efficacy of the chemical or biological control is also very important, because I think it is fair to say that, no matter how safe the agent is, there are always going to be adverse environmental effects—maybe not in the short term, necessarily, but in the medium to long term. As time goes on we are learning a lot more about these long-term effects, fertiliser being a perfect example. Over the years the overuse of fertiliser and other sprays has affected the productivity of our soils. The efficacy issue is an important one because farmers want to be able to discern not only whether the chemical is safe but whether the use of the chemical has efficacy, in that there is a positive cost-to-benefit outcome.

My appeal to the government is that these are bipartisan issues and that a lot of conversations should be had before any dramatic changes are put in place with respect to how the APVMA assesses these biological controls and, more typically, chemicals, remembering that the APVMA is already under pressure and has already slowed down the process of farm chemical approvals. That is simply because, quite frankly, staff are worried about their future, they know they will not be able to move to Armidale and so they are taking days off—days owed to them—to look for alternative employment. So, already, the agriculture minister's thought bubble, his crazy idea, of moving the APVMA is having an impact on the processes within the APVMA and therefore already having an adverse impact on the farming community.

I was delighted when the Prime Minister intervened and said that he would insist on a benefit-to-cost ratio study on the APVMA's relocation—to the minister's electorate, of course—but I was concerned when I saw a press conference by the minister yesterday in which he indicated that he still determined to move the APVMA to Armidale, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister has issued his edict: a study must be done. That study has not been completed, if indeed it has begun. I appeal to the Prime Minister once again to intervene to save the APVMA, to save that workforce to make sure those skills and expertise are retained, so that we continue to deliver to the farming community the services it deserves.

On a similar topic, today I announce my intention to ask the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport committee to hold an inquiry into a very serious problem being played out in many regional communities: flying-fox infestation. Nowhere is this issue more serious than in the townships of Singleton and Cessnock in my electorate, and this is not an issue that is unfamiliar to this place. I have spoken with the committee's chair and today I will begin a dialogue with both the Minister for the Environment and the shadow minister for the environment to shape the terms of reference. The terms of reference will need to be balanced, acknowledging both this very serious issue in our communities and the endangered species status of the grey-haired flying fox and its role in maintaining biodiversity. If the Senate agrees, I do not want the inquiry to be one of conflict; rather, I want it to be one which find solutions for local communities while recognising and respecting the sites. As I said at a rally in Singleton yesterday, surely in this 21st century we have the wit to do both—to respect and defend the science, to defend the endangered species status of the bats, and at the same time deal with the very serious issues they cause in our local communities.

In Singleton, in my electorate, the local central park has around 15,000 flying foxes in it. With the noise and odour problems, the park can no longer be used. We used to hold Anzac Day services there; we have not done that for years, simply because the presence of the bats does not allow it. Recently, sadly, the council has found it necessary to close the park. The park is no longer in use. Right next door to Cessnock East Public School, in my electorate, is a huge bat colony of at least 10,000, and that is causing all sorts of problems both for the school and for the broader community.

As the bill before us today seeks us to do, we need to respect the science and we need to respect the endangered species status of the flying foxes and their role in our biodiversity. But, to understand the impact the bats are having on the communities, I want the Senate committee to come to these regional towns, including Singleton and Cessnock in my electorate. In this place, they can learn plenty about the science and the role bats play maintaining our biodiversity, but, to understand the impacts on the communities, they really need to get out there and talk to local people about the noise, about the smell and about the way in which they have had taken away from them their capacity to enjoy the local amenities—in the case of Singleton, that local park. Surely a Senate committee inquiry taking evidence from both scientists and the community can find a way through, and surely, in this 21st century, local government, state government and federal government can find a way to ensure that the species is protected and, at the same time, that the rights of communities to enjoy their local amenities are protected.

Again, the opposition supports the bill before the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016, and I thank the member for Hunter for his contribution and for his support for the bill. In an example not dissimilar to that put forward by the honourable member, recently, in a small village in my electorate by the name of Boonah, there was a bat colony. No bats were harmed, but the colony's roost was very strategically removed, at a time outside the mating season for the bats, to the immense pleasure of the local residents.

The removal of the colony has changed immensely the outlook, lifestyle and quality of life of some of the residents. Bats, when flying overhead, release droppings. In regional areas, the major source of water collection is rain off the roofs. When this mixes with flying-fox faeces, it can have an unsavoury taste, as one can imagine. So there were health issues that have been addressed. So I indicate to the member for Hunter that there are successful examples of colonies being moved on—and I wish strength to his arm, because I know I know how devastating and unwelcome these colonies can be to a community.

The bill amends the definition of 'organism' for the purposes of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and subviral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms. The need for the bill has arisen out of an ongoing contemporary scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community.

What is the Biological Control Act 1984 used for? It is apt that one would ask that. The Commonwealth act and mirror legislation in the states and territories provides a legislative framework for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public's best interest. The act includes structured consultation requirements which provide an opportunity for the community to have their say about proposed biological control activities. The act then provides for the declaration of the target organisms.

What would the Biological Control Act 1984 mean for my electorate? In my electorate I have quite a range of diversity, but the main economic driver in the electorate is, without a doubt, horticulture. This horticulture consists of the brassicas—cauliflower, cabbages—as well as carrots, beans, corn, potatoes and rotational crops in the way of legumes, including mung beans and soy beans. It is an incredibly fertile area. We also have a close relationship with the tourism sector, and this Biological Control Amendment Bill assists both of those growing economic drivers.

The bill also relates to eradicating rabbits. The member for Hunter spoke about the myxomatosis program back in the 1970s, which to date has been the most successful eradication program. I know there are many local farmers in my electorate who have an ongoing battle to control rabbit populations on their properties, despite the Queensland rabbit and wild dog fence running right through the middle of my electorate. In particular, in the Lockyer Valley, where much of South-East Queensland's vegetables are grown, there has been a drastic spike in rabbit numbers over the last couple of years, with local farmers saying that 2015 has been the worst year ever for rabbits. Rabbits are bad news for the crops I mentioned earlier—lettuce, broccoli and especially carrots. As we well know, rabbits love all of these, and the loss of stock for farmers has the impact of driving up prices because of spoilage out of paddock. Of course that spoilage then rolls through and has an effect on the hip pockets of mums and dads when they are buying fresh produce from retailers. This bill holds the potential to finally control rabbit numbers in a fast and effective way. The bill introduces the use of a virus which will limit wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of potential members. Such a measure would no doubt be well received. Without these agents, annual costs to agriculture alone would be more than $2 billion. That is an enormous amount of money that can be saved.

The other pest that the Biological Control Amendment Bill seeks to address closer to home for me is the carp. We have some beautiful waterways in my electorate. Wyaralong Dam is probably the most recent dam constructed in my electorate, and there are also Moogerah Dam, Maroon Dam, the Teviot Creek system, Christmas Creek and the Logan River system, just to name a few. These waterways provide a wonderful tourism economy—we are strategically located within an hour and a half of the Gold Coast and an hour and half from Brisbane, and for those families looking to come down and have a camping experience it is a wonderful area. We need to protect these water systems in many ways, and carp are a natural enemy in these waterways. You can see the presence of carp because they eat away at the banks, chasing moths. They are very predatory—they eat a number of native species, fish included, that cohabit these waterways. It is another pest that is a serious problem for both farmers and tourism operators.

The pristine waterways and dams in the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley have long been a tourism drawcard. However, during the last decade introduced carp have ravaged the natural ecosystems of our local waterways. But there is some good news. Just last Saturday in Wyaralong Dam there was a carp eradication competition held—a very industrious and entrepreneurial event. There were 251 competitors and they removed no less than 1,250 carp from the dam. In addition, they also raised over $5,000 in the eradication program, and they have put the money towards purchasing new young fish species to be introduced back into the dam. This bill seeks to fight the nationwide carp problem with cyprinid herpesvirus 3, which will reduce the pressure introduced carp species are placing on natural ecosystems.    Many people in my electorate are eager to see this method trialled in the Scenic Rim region where waterways have been downgraded significantly due to carp infestations. I have made representation to the Minister for Agriculture, requesting trials for this herpesvirus to be held in some of my local waterways, where trials can be contained and fish cannot go out to sea. That request was not a brainchild of mine—it was driven by a very motivated community who first heard about some of the work being done with the CSIRO and made the request directly to my office and about whether or not trials would be possible. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture has made the request through to the relevant peak body and is awaiting feedback from them as to whether or not Wright could be considered as a trial area given our heightened motivation to eradicate this pest series, the carp. More to the point, biocontrol agents have been used successfully in Australia to control pests and weeds that have had a significant economic and environmental impact. The cost of agricultural production losses attributable to pest animals was estimated to be more than $620 million in 2009. In 2004 a study estimated the agricultural cost of weeds alone to be nearly $4 billion per annum.

Biocontrol agents can be bacteria, fungi, viruses or predatory organisms, such as insects. They are highly specific and usually found in the native home-range of the invasive species. Biocontrol is a cost-effective solution to managing invasive species and generally does not require reapplication once established—unlike chemicals or poisons, where you need to go back continuously. Once the costs of testing and introducing control agents are met, the ongoing costs are small and the cost-benefit ratio of the control is high.

Candidate biocontrol agents undergo extensive testing to assess risks to domestic, agricultural and native species, and the release of control agents requires approval under a number of different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the Quarantine Act 1908 (Biosecurity Act 2015) for the importation and release of the control agents—fungi, insects, virus et cetera. The other two are: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to assess environmental impact and for inclusion on the live-import list; and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to assess the safety and efficacy of the agent.

Biocontrol may reduce the spread and density of infestations or reduce numbers to a level where other controls are no longer necessary. More commonly, other methods are still required to achieve the desired level of control, and an integrated management approach using a combination of control methods is recommended. This may include chemical controls, such as herbicides or baits, or physical controls, like the mechanical removal of weeds, ripping burrows and/or the use of competitive crops or pasture and grazing management.

In closing, I want to touch on the point made by the member for Hunter on the relocation of the APVMA and take this opportunity to thank them for the work they do. It is not inconceivable that we should have a government department which works closely with farmers located strategically in a regional base. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we should consider that—and I am sure that at every stage the Deputy Prime Minister is strategic in his thinking and always assessing the national benefit. I also want to acknowledge the work that CSIRO does in this area. Biosecurity should be paramount for Australia—we are geographically isolated from anyone and we have natural barriers. It is in our nation's best interest to protect and secure our native species. At any stretch, we should eradicate pests. I commend the bill to the House.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The biosecurity of this great nation is one of the most important issues we face and a constant challenge. We are an island nation, and this has provided significant natural barriers to foreign pests and diseases—significant but not infallible. There have been incursions which have cost the country dearly, and at the base of almost every one of those has been human intervention.

Our forebears brought in rabbits for food and for hunting, only to see them take over the country and cause devastation. In recent times the introduction of myxomatosis and calicivirus have helped manage them, but the time will come when the rabbit population develops resistance to both of these, and a new control mechanism will be required. Foxes were introduced about the same time, and the impact of them on native species has been, and still is, significant. It is interesting that there is not much that will eat a dead fox—even a crow struggles. We could use a good biological control agent for them, because baiting and shooting have some effect but will never eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the greatest invader, the infamous cane toad, is an example of good intent resulting in disaster, because of a lack of knowledge and the abandonment of the precautionary principle of environmental management. Brought in to control the cane beetle, it has been one of the most damaging invaders. It is a good example of what not to do, but, having said that, it is also a great study for the future—as long as we learn from our mistakes. It is interesting to observe how the front of the toad invasion sees massive numbers of toads inflict serious ecological damage, followed by a rebalancing of the environmental balance, where the toad population stabilises to a more manageable number. We need more work and study on this example of how we got it wrong to make sure we do not make the same mistakes again.

In Western Australia, like the rest of the country, biosecurity has been an ongoing challenge. We see new invasive species enter to be classified as 'the highest priority for removal'. Then, as the response by authorities proves inevitably inadequate, we watch those species get moved down the categories from 'eradication to prevent the spread of'; then 'to prevent the spread of in certain areas'; and then to 'it is now endemic' and landowners, who usually expect governments to control them, are expected to control them on their own land. For example, in my area narrow-leaf cotton bush has simply dropped down the categories, without government forcing the issue and now, to all intents and purposes, has become endemic. And blackberry has taken over huge areas of state managed land in the South West to the point that, again, eradication has been abandoned and replaced by an effort at containment.

I would also like to mention an invasive species, which is having a huge impact in my electorate, and that is feral pigs. Feral pigs are an absolute curse to landowners, especially farmers. They damage crops and pastures, and do enormous damage to soils. When you see how they dig it up, they can do a huge amount of damage. But, equally, they are a risk to people. My own son was down in the back paddock—I think he was going to change the irrigation with a four-wheeler motorbike—when he got a sense of something coming at him. Fortunately, he turned the motorbike sufficiently for the feral pig, with its decent sized tusks, to hit the side of the bike and lift it off the ground. He was fortunate to be able to get away from it. It was a very large feral pig. Feral pigs carry a huge weight and can do enormous damage to not only the pasture, the ground and the soils but also, if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, humans. The saddest part of the feral pig problem in my part of the world is that many are deliberately released by weekend hunters. The hunters release them into the wild with a litter and then come back later just to hunt them. This is deliberate desecration of our great south-west environment, and it has to be fought with all possible vigour.

This bill amends the definition of an 'organism' for the purpose of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and sub-viral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms. The Commonwealth act and mirror legislation in the states and the Northern Territory provide a legislative framework for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest—for the reasons that I mentioned earlier in my speech. The need for the bill has arisen out of ongoing contemporary scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. Because viruses are incapable of reproducing without a host, the majority scientific view at this point in time is that they are not organisms. Some scientists would, however, consider a virus to be an organism. Biological science, by its very nature, is constantly evolving in light of new knowledge and evidence. 'Sub-viral agent' is a taxonomic category that includes viroids, satellite viruses and prions—agents that are smaller than viruses and have some of their properties. This category is included because it is plausible that sub-viral agents may be useful as agents for biological control in the future.

There is no requirement that all proposed biological control programs be submitted for consideration under the biological control legislation. Most biological control agents are not a source of controversy and all biological control agents are subject to other rigorous approvals and scientific testing under other legislation. The biological control acts of 1984 to 1986 were created to solve the issue of a court injunction on the release of biological control agents for the weed Paterson's curse. The injunction was lodged by a small group of graziers and apiarists in South Australia, as they considered the loss of Paterson's curse a threat to their livelihoods. The act provided an equitable means of assessing whether the proposed release of the biological control agents was in the public interest.

Since 1984, the act has been used to declare three biocontrol targets and agents. Rabbits and rabbit calicivirus disease organisms were declared in 1996. The combination of the calicivirus, or rabbit haemorr—haemorrhagic disease virus, RHDV—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was it again?

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How about you say it, and we will all be right! The combination of it and myxoma virus has suppressed wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers. Blackberry and blackberry leaf rust were released in 1991 and 1992. Leaf rust has slowed the rate of spread and reduced total biomass, particularly in Victoria. To combat Paterson's curse, seven different types of insects have been approved for release in Australia. Six of the insects have been established in the field and they are helping to suppress the weed as part of an integrated management approach.

The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community. The amendments are consistent with the original intent of the act, which was established to provide an equitable means of determining whether a proposed biological control program is in the public interest and, where appropriate, to authorise the release of biological control agents. The bill will not affect the existing basic scientific, technical or safety procedures and standards applying to biological control. We need this level of confidence.

Biological control agents will continue to be subject to considerable testing and approval processes prior to release in Australia. The act then provides for the declaration of 'target organisms', for example, the weed Paterson's curse, and 'agent organisms', for example, the crown weevil. It contains provisions to ensure that biological control activities are subject to liability protection and can proceed without interruption by litigation. The Australian Chief Veterinary Officer and Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer provided scientific advice during the drafting of the bill and supported the approach.

I will go back to where I started. We are an island nation. This has given us significant national barriers to foreign pests and diseases. But, as I said, while such barriers are significant, they are not infallible. I spoke earlier about feral pigs, and I will raise this subject once again in finishing my comments today: this is a significant and growing problem. My area in the south-west is not the only area that has this problem. The fact that we have people actively releasing pigs to then hunt them later does not in any way reflect the enormous cost that this brings to landholders and farmers, or the risk to people who might find themselves confronted by one of these feral pigs if they are out in the bush or even in farmland, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being just on 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order No. 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.